Goodman v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 85

ORDER Granting 79 Amended Stipulation to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadlines and 80 Defendants' Emergency Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline. Motions due 1/10/13. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/5/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***

6
7
CHENTILE GOODMAN,
8
Plaintiff,
9
vs.
10
11
12

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01447-MMD-CWH
ORDER

13
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Amended Stipulation to Extend Dispositive
14
Motion Deadline (#79), filed on December 5, 2012, and Defendants’ Emergency Motion to
15
Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline (#80), filed on December 5, 2012.
16
The Court denied the parties’ prior request to extend the dispositive motion deadline
17
without prejudice because the parties failed to comply with LR 26-4. See Order #78. After
18
reviewing the parties’ Amended Stipulation and Emergency Motion, the Court finds that the
19
excusable neglect standard has been met. In evaluating excusable neglect, the court considers the
20
following factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, (2) the length of delay and its
21
potential impact on the proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, and (4) whether the movant
22
acted in good faith. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380,
23
395 (1993); see also Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010).
24
Here, there is little danger of prejudice to Plaintiff because she has agreed to the requested
25
extension. Additionally, the Court understands that Defense counsel intended to comply with the
26
December 5, 2012 dispositive motion deadline and the motion is made in good faith. There is
27
also a minor impact on the proceedings as a trial date has not been scheduled. However, the
28
Court notes that this is the parties’ ninth request for an extension of a discovery deadline.

1

Additionally, Defense counsel indicates that she received notice on November 30, 2012 for

2

depositions that contributed to her inability to meet the dispositive motion deadline. As such,

3

Defense counsel could have filed this motion prior to the expiration of the dispositive motion

4

deadline on December 5, 2012. Further, the Court notes that Defendants’ motion does not

5

qualify as an emergency as outlined in Local Rule 7-5(d). Nevertheless, the Court finds that it is

6

appropriate to grant an extension of the dispositive motion deadline to January 10, 2013.

7

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Amended Stipulation to Extend

9
10
11
12

Dispositive Motion Deadline (#79) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Extend
Dispositive Motion Deadline (#80) is granted.
DATED this 5th day of December, 2012.

13
14
15
16

C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-